8 ms·

This is a great idea! Hypothetical: I do wonder how admissible this is as court evidence in a world where DeepFake videos is an open source tool. If it's not o

This is a great idea! Hypothetical: I do wonder how admissible this is as court evidence in a world where DeepFake videos is an open source tool. If it's not on the protester's facebook, couldn't a clever defense attorney just claim the video was altered by the archivist and "there's no way to prove that is the face of the defendant"? I bet it would need to be coupled with other evidence, testimony, etc?

MattGaiser 6y ago
If it got to a trial, they would just get the original from Facebook with a court order.
caymanjim 6y ago
Cell phone tracking, eyewitnesses, confessions. Most of these people aren't going to be arrested or prosecuted, and the more egregious ones are going to brag about it.
rapind 6y ago
I don't think deep fake is deep enough to survive real scrutiny, especially with tools to detect fakes. I'm not even sure still image fakes are good enough to be undetectable given some time and resources. Deep fake videos are more about influencing opinion, especially when people can't be bothered to check sources, which is a legitimate concern. I expect that any video submitted as court evidence will undergo the necessary scrutiny.
- handedness 6y ago
  > I expect that any video submitted as court evidence will undergo the necessary scrutiny. Evidence often only undergoes the level of scrutiny for which the accused are willing and able to pay. Contesting a sophisticated deep fake would require leading expert witness research and testimony, which can cost thousands of dollars per hour and take weeks or months. For the proverbial Trial of the Century, fake detection may well be robust enough for a long time to come. For many others, though, it's likely another shift in the balance of power further in favor of the well-funded, whether said funding comes by way of existing wealth or an ability to print currency.
  - behringer 6y ago
    Scrutiny only happens when evidence is contested as forged. You have to be willing to lie under oath that the evidence is forged before anyone would even care to look into it. And if it's determined not a fake through other evidence, for example, corroborating witnesses and footage, then you'll have impeached yourself and nobody will really believe you from then on. Eg, evidence is kind of like a witness. If all the evidence is stacked against you, you're screwed. If one video shows you and you claim it's fake and everything else points to it being fake, there's a shadow of a doubt. I wouldn't worry too much about forged evidence.
    - handedness 6y ago
      Correct, I'm familiar with how it works, hence whether they are willing and able to contest it. Often the will to contest it just isn't there, as people know they've been had. That said, one's will is often contingent on one's ability. Anyway, the reality is likely that the biggest impact of forged evidence is unlikely to be in courtrooms; it's going to be in the court of public opinion.
chowells 6y ago
No physical evidence is ever provided without some sort of testimony as to its provenance. The legal system was already equipped for this, in theory. The bigger problem recently has been that when someone is willing to lie about their faked evidence, it's harder to detect and impeach the testimony introducing that evidence. So it's a problem, but not a structural one. The existing structures are already designed to handle forged evidence. The issue is that it's more expensive and technically difficult for parties to audit evidence in search of that forgery.
Mizza 6y ago
A great idea! While we're at it, let's have a game show where condemned prisoners battle celebrity bounty hunters on live television! So weird to see hackers suddenly embracing the surveillance state, national security directives, security theater and a harsh judiciary for political protest just because it's a bunch of lower class brainwashed boomers instead of their favorite whiny private university activists.
- another_sock 6y ago
  It's not really weird, it's expected. What would be weird is if the HN crowd was able to think for themselves when the media, all governments, and tech companies are pushing the same narrative. Employees of tech companies aren't any different than employees of non-tech companies, their main trait is following orders.
  - eutropia 6y ago
    "Pushing a narrative" is a pretty hilarious way to put it when you also say "the media, all governments, and tech companies" were the ones doing it. It implies a conspiracy to paint the picture differently than it was, which seems like an audaciously high bar of scrutiny to pass when it unfolded live. Could it also be that everyone just reported what they saw? And could it be that what everyone saw was the President of the US tell his fervent supporters to march to the Capitol and "not be weak"? And that such supporters posted videos of themselves committing crimes in the name of a conspiracy theory which is been more thoroughly debunked than any in modern history? I'm almost afraid to ask what the competing narrative (the one being covered up or bulldozed by the popular one being 'pushed') could be.
    - another_sock 6y ago
      You're not afraid to ask what the competing narrative is though, because you have all the institutions pushing the dominant narrative on your side. Enjoy this!
      - 6y ago
redisman 6y ago
I mean you can corroborate it with a plane ticket most likely
- gruez 6y ago
  "Why yes I did travel to DC to protest. No, I didn't break into the capitol building"
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - redisman 6y ago
    This livestream your dumb ass streamed out of there proves otherwise
PeterisP 6y ago
While a disputed video might not considered sufficient evidence for conviction, it would most definitely constitute probable cause to justify forensics of the involved defendant's devices and for a subpoena to Facebook for the deleted data (which, in many cases, is not really deleted-deleted and may be found on e.g. backups) - and those things generally would be sufficient to verify if the video is real or altered.

MattGaiser 6y ago

If it got to a trial, they would just get the original from Facebook with a court order.

caymanjim 6y ago

Cell phone tracking, eyewitnesses, confessions. Most of these people aren't going to be arrested or prosecuted, and the more egregious ones are going to brag about it.

rapind 6y ago

I don't think deep fake is deep enough to survive real scrutiny, especially with tools to detect fakes. I'm not even sure still image fakes are good enough to be undetectable given some time and resources. Deep fake videos are more about influencing opinion, especially when people can't be bothered to check sources, which is a legitimate concern. I expect that any video submitted as court evidence will undergo the necessary scrutiny.

handedness 6y ago
> I expect that any video submitted as court evidence will undergo the necessary scrutiny. Evidence often only undergoes the level of scrutiny for which the accused are willing and able to pay. Contesting a sophisticated deep fake would require leading expert witness research and testimony, which can cost thousands of dollars per hour and take weeks or months. For the proverbial Trial of the Century, fake detection may well be robust enough for a long time to come. For many others, though, it's likely another shift in the balance of power further in favor of the well-funded, whether said funding comes by way of existing wealth or an ability to print currency.
- behringer 6y ago
  Scrutiny only happens when evidence is contested as forged. You have to be willing to lie under oath that the evidence is forged before anyone would even care to look into it. And if it's determined not a fake through other evidence, for example, corroborating witnesses and footage, then you'll have impeached yourself and nobody will really believe you from then on. Eg, evidence is kind of like a witness. If all the evidence is stacked against you, you're screwed. If one video shows you and you claim it's fake and everything else points to it being fake, there's a shadow of a doubt. I wouldn't worry too much about forged evidence.
  - handedness 6y ago
    Correct, I'm familiar with how it works, hence whether they are willing and able to contest it. Often the will to contest it just isn't there, as people know they've been had. That said, one's will is often contingent on one's ability. Anyway, the reality is likely that the biggest impact of forged evidence is unlikely to be in courtrooms; it's going to be in the court of public opinion.

chowells 6y ago

No physical evidence is ever provided without some sort of testimony as to its provenance. The legal system was already equipped for this, in theory. The bigger problem recently has been that when someone is willing to lie about their faked evidence, it's harder to detect and impeach the testimony introducing that evidence. So it's a problem, but not a structural one. The existing structures are already designed to handle forged evidence. The issue is that it's more expensive and technically difficult for parties to audit evidence in search of that forgery.

Mizza 6y ago

A great idea! While we're at it, let's have a game show where condemned prisoners battle celebrity bounty hunters on live television! So weird to see hackers suddenly embracing the surveillance state, national security directives, security theater and a harsh judiciary for political protest just because it's a bunch of lower class brainwashed boomers instead of their favorite whiny private university activists.

another_sock 6y ago
It's not really weird, it's expected. What would be weird is if the HN crowd was able to think for themselves when the media, all governments, and tech companies are pushing the same narrative. Employees of tech companies aren't any different than employees of non-tech companies, their main trait is following orders.
- eutropia 6y ago
  "Pushing a narrative" is a pretty hilarious way to put it when you also say "the media, all governments, and tech companies" were the ones doing it. It implies a conspiracy to paint the picture differently than it was, which seems like an audaciously high bar of scrutiny to pass when it unfolded live. Could it also be that everyone just reported what they saw? And could it be that what everyone saw was the President of the US tell his fervent supporters to march to the Capitol and "not be weak"? And that such supporters posted videos of themselves committing crimes in the name of a conspiracy theory which is been more thoroughly debunked than any in modern history? I'm almost afraid to ask what the competing narrative (the one being covered up or bulldozed by the popular one being 'pushed') could be.
  - another_sock 6y ago
    You're not afraid to ask what the competing narrative is though, because you have all the institutions pushing the dominant narrative on your side. Enjoy this!
    - 6y ago

redisman 6y ago

I mean you can corroborate it with a plane ticket most likely

gruez 6y ago
"Why yes I did travel to DC to protest. No, I didn't break into the capitol building"
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- redisman 6y ago
  This livestream your dumb ass streamed out of there proves otherwise

PeterisP 6y ago

While a disputed video might not considered sufficient evidence for conviction, it would most definitely constitute probable cause to justify forensics of the involved defendant's devices and for a subpoena to Facebook for the deleted data (which, in many cases, is not really deleted-deleted and may be found on e.g. backups) - and those things generally would be sufficient to verify if the video is real or altered.